Of course I know of the JPSDS and SAF-ITE scheme. It's not about having a good life, but surviving. It's like molecules in boiling water. Some get enough energy and escape. But the rest are stuck and keep bumping into the other molecules.

Everyday I fret about school fees, text book costs, thankfully not quite at the "where's my next meal" level yet. Sure, you can say "but people can always work harder, earn more $$" - how much harder do we have to work? And of course, I know my own life is not much of a sample. But still.

Lol CNA is super funny today. Keep getting rebuffed by the candidates. Did you see the part where they panned to Tony Tan, interrupting something to say "We've got a live interview...well, perhaps not"?

TJS is such a media whore. And didn't get his speech telecast live. Idiot.

I'm not anti-foreigner and neither is my party, really. There is nothing wrong with immigration per se but infrastructure must be improved enough to handle the inflow and the labour market must still have jobs for Singaporeans.

I'm not sure about us failing to compete in the global arena. Much anecdotal evidence suggests that Singaporeans find it easier to compete overseas.

You sound like someone who was at least born into a reasonably functional family. I've had teenaged staff who had rather sad backgrounds, end up in the ITE, don't care about studying - what's going to happen when all these people become even more disenfranchised than they already are?

I like TKL. Frankly, I feel he's the only real finance guy. Tony Tan's worth is insufficiently independently attested to. And I'm impressed by the four-language nomination speech too. But he seems the least likely to win.

TT is arrogant. Maybe you see it as confidence and strength, I don't know.

I'm basing this on our skype convos with fill (and latte I think?). And I'm not stalking you, you pickled gizzard! I just happened to be in the same thread, at the same time, staring at your underpants! So there!

"For instance, I do not speak with a Singlish accent" --- YES YOU DO, though you may not perceive it. Your enunciation is singaporean, though your inflections may *occasionally* sound western. The overall sound to me is still of a singaporean speaking in a slightly western manner.

Thanks. Oh, and about the last thing you said in that "response to pod'lair" about what type you are.

I don't type people through text alone, there was a point where I was doing this, so I assume that is why you think I will. But over time I recognized the inherent weaknesses and unreliability of trying to properly interpret the use of cognitive functions simply by analysing the way a person is typing. So it is video or nothing.

Have you ever been viewing who is online, and then noticed that at the exact same moment someone else is viewing who is online. And then you wonder if where ever they are on earth, they too are looking at your status of "Viewing whose online."

Distinction should be drawn between validity and soundness, as I said. The whole purpose is to identify arguments which may be untrue (even if they may be true part of the time), so we will not be misled.

Anyway, it is your right to have an illogical sig :p

I have studied logic semi-formally, but knew it before I did that. A book called "How to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic" taught me much (not sure if you've read that before). And a book called "How to win any argument" helped with the emotional side.

Though considering my lack of success hitherto, they mightn't help. Though I suspect that has more to do with the ineptitude of the reader than the authors :(.

And your last post wouldn't have been unassailable (logic wise). I would say "no offence", but I'm not particularly enamoured of that cliche.

A true conclusion can follow from true premises even if there is a flawed argument. The contentious word is because. Affirming the consequent is a fallacy in deductive logic regardless of whether there are conditions under which the latter can be fulfilled while the former is not, because true conclusions do not invariably follow from true premises when you use this logical structure (I'm sure you know what a logical fallacy is). Granted, it is usually inductively cogent - but "because" differs from "because it is highly likely that" & friends.

I'm sure you know what would be a valid form of your sig (maybe use modus tollens or something).